Er:YAG laser irradiation of sound enamel before acid challenge vs No anticaries intervention (untreated enamel): Enamel surface microhardness
In sound enamel, Er:YAG laser irradiation significantly increased surface microhardness after acid challenge versus untreated control (SMD 2.41, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.12; 3 in vitro studies; ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Er:YAG laser irradiation of sound enamel before acid challenge vs No anticaries intervention (untreated enamel) Enamel surface microhardness · Human tooth enamel specimens, sound/intact (in vitro) · After cariogenic acid challenge / pH cycling, In vitro (laboratory), sound enamel In sound enamel, Er:YAG laser irradiation significantly increased surface microhardness after acid challenge versus untreated control (SMD 2.41, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.12; 3 in vitro studies; ungraded). Effect of Er:YAG Laser Irradiation on Preventing Enamel Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. (2024) All outcomes | SMD 2.41 [0.70, 4.12] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of Er:YAG Laser Irradiation on Preventing Enamel Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. 2024 All outcomes | Up to June 2023 | 16 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Studies behind the findings
The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.
- The Effects of Different Anticavity Agents and Er:YAG Laser Usage on Enamel Surface Microhardness. · 2020 · included by 1 of these review
- Effect of Er:YAG Laser on CaF <sub>2</sub> Formation and Its Anti-Cariogenic Action on Human Enamel: An <i>in Vitro</i> Study · 2003 · included by 1 of these review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.